On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:06:20AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 08:54:54AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:05:59PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>>On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >>>>Kernel stable team, > >>>> > >>>>here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only > >>>>change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log, > >>>>and I've now also Cc'd stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as well. No other issues > >>>>were spotted or raised with this series. > >>>> > >>>>Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated. > >>> > >>>Test results? > >>> > >>>The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is > >>>in the testing... > >> > >>Luis noted on v1 that it passes through his oscheck test suite, and I > >>noted that I haven't seen any regression with the xfstests scripts I > >>have. > >> > >>What sort of data are you looking for beyond "we didn't see a > >>regression"? > > > >Nothing special, just a summary of what was tested so we have some > >visibility of whether the testing covered the proposed changes > >sufficiently. i.e. something like: > > > > Patchset was run through ltp and the fstests "auto" group > > with the following configs: > > > > - mkfs/mount defaults > > - -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1 > > - -b size=1k > > - -m crc=0 > > .... > > > > No new regressions were reported. > > > > > >Really, all I'm looking for is a bit more context for the review > >process - nobody remembers what configs other people test. However, > >it's important in reviewing a backport to know whether a backport to > >a fix, say, a bug in the rmap code actually got exercised by the > >tests on an rmap enabled filesystem... > > Sure! Below are the various configs this was run against. There were > multiple runs over 48+ hours and no regressions from a 4.14.17 baseline > were observed. Thanks, Sasha. As an ongoing thing, I reckon a "grep _OPTIONS <config_files>" (catches both mkfs and mount options) would be sufficient as a summary of what was tested in the series decription... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
